Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

I never thought I'd say this but...Ken Livingstone for PM!

82 replies

breadandbutterfly · 13/12/2011 22:34

I've never liked Ken much on a personal level, BUT Ken will win the London election by a landslide, thanks to this policy:

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/13/ken-livingstone-tackle-london-rent

At last, at bloody last - a politician who recognises the massive importance to an increasing number of voters of affordable, reasonable quality housing for those forced to rent currently at the mercy of greedy landlords and unscrupulous lettings agencies.

How long till the rest of his party, let alone the others, catch up??

OP posts:
youngermother1 · 20/12/2011 22:09

what has my age got to do with it?

Original poster
breadandbutterfly · 20/12/2011 21:57

Disputandem - "It's quite hard to find anyone serious who does think rent controls work".

It really depends what you mean by 'work'. If you mean 'help establish a growing and thriving private rented sector', then clearly capping the amount of profit a landlord can make by (outrageously) reducing rents to levels where tenants can actually afford to do unnecessary things like eat etc will hinder this - if you think, as I do, that what matters is that people have access to affordable accomodation, it will undeniably work. Higher and uncapped rents encourage people to buy property not as a home but to rent out, thus reducing the amount of stock available to buy and in turn putting up the cost of housing to buy due to increased demand. Capping rents may indeed reduce the stock of available housing to rent; but will in turn drive out the get-rich-quick landlords and increase the amount of property available to buy. Hence reducing property prices (great for would-be buyers) and driving out rogue landlords. Which, from the point of view of tenants, is definitely a situation that 'works'.

Whilst would-be get-rich-quick laandlords would undeniably think that rent controls were bad news, I don't think that is sufficient argument. Your economists (well, 76% of them) agreed back in 1990, when housing prices were far lower globally, and the effects of high housing prices and the resulting collapse in the world economic order had not yet been anticipated. I'd be very surprised if even as unrepresentative sample as that given in 1990 would claim anything of the sort today. Though given the average intelligence of economists, that is not a given. Wink

OP posts:
Original poster
breadandbutterfly · 20/12/2011 21:28

How young did you say yo were, youngermother1? Shock

OP posts:
youngermother1 · 20/12/2011 13:47

Sorry, fail to understand why World Bank is biased? In which way and why?

Disputandum · 20/12/2011 13:26

It's quite hard to find anyone serious who does think rent controls work.

It's not often that economists agree

I think we'd have to see more specifics from Ken really.

Original poster
breadandbutterfly · 20/12/2011 10:12

aka They would say that wouldn't they.

OP posts:
Original poster
breadandbutterfly · 20/12/2011 10:12

The World Bank - totally unbiased source. Hmm

OP posts:
youngermother1 · 20/12/2011 01:25

Well, according to the world bank, rent control does not work - and it is tenants, not landlords that lose out www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/1998/08/01/000009265_3981005100402/additional/124524322_20041117162054.pdf
Also, housing benefit pays 'average rate' for an area, so increased rates increases income from government. Recent changes should flow through to reduce rents as housing benefit is reduced - there are not enough private tenants to make up the shortfall, so landlords will need to accept less or have an empty property. This will, however, take time to filter through.

SalmeMurrikAgain · 20/12/2011 00:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TeWiharaMeriKirihimete · 14/12/2011 17:38

I am always Hmm about the suggestion that everyone moves up north for cheaper houses... aren't there also barely any jobs? When we made the decision to move wherever DH or I (whoever found one first) could get an okay paying job, nothing at all came up north of where we ended up - the v v south of the midlands!

And yes, rent and houses are expensive here, but at least DH got a job.

Agency fees are pretty high - I think it is 10-15%? Not a LL, but I know it was £80pcm on our previous £625pcm rental.

bobthebuddha · 14/12/2011 13:48

Interesting, but I wonder by what percentage a 'non-profit lettings agency' could actually reduce the average rent? This seems to be less about rent control itself than agency fees specifically. Anyone know the average mark-up?

The problem of high rents also existed last time Ken was Mayor (and I seem to recall he was around for some time); what exactly did he do then?

MrPants · 14/12/2011 12:21

To be fair, there's half a dozen different competing elements that all come together to make housing so expensive.

One of the major issues is the scarcity of land with the correct planning permissions in place. There has been little change in which bits of the country we can and can't build in (Greenbelt restrictions) since WW2. Despite this, the population has increased from around 40 million in the 1940's to around 65 million today.

Secondly, the population of Britain is biased towards London and the South East; therefore, a disproportionate number of those 65 million are crammed into a smaller area with knock on effects for the scarcity of land.

Thirdly, paying housing benefits at commercial rates means that the whole rental market is overpriced - let?s face it, from a private landlord POV the government will always pay on time and is a low risk tenant so why doesn't the government negotiate themselves a better deal? - If the rental market is overpriced, house prices for everyone will rise accordingly.

The other problem is that right now, people are sat on property which they think is worth x - changing the system so that property is worth significantly less than x would destroy billions of pounds of 'wealth' (note the use of inverted commas).

Disputandum · 14/12/2011 11:04

I certainly agree that we need to improve existing accreditation schemes, raise awareness of tenants' rights and do more to legally challenge unscrupulous landlords in order to improve the quality of existing stock.

I also think that we need to build more houses to create more choice for tenants.

Original poster
breadandbutterfly · 14/12/2011 10:16

disputandem - "Yes it does appeal to ... those who hope to gain personally," - as opposed to current legislation, which appeals to landlords, who of course rent properties out not at all because they hope to gain personally, but just out of the kindness of their hearts. Hmm

Explain again could you why that well-known bastion of socialism, the US, has rent controls in most major cities? Or why the German model of renting is so widely praised, including - crucially - by every german i have ever heard/read on the subject?

Oh, and whikle you're at it, explain how loads of over-priced, poor quality rentals = "choice" for tenants? I can't choose between a load of options I can't afford, can I? hence the sense of rent controls.

OP posts:
Disputandum · 14/12/2011 09:54

Yes it does appeal to people with a superficial understanding of social justice, or those who hope to gain personally, but through the law of unintended consequences simply doesn't work.

That is why most of the world has been moving away from rent controls - removing or softening - for the past 20 years or so.

Tenants are best served when presented with genuine choice, and rent controls of the nature suggested by Ken serve to reduce choice as landlords ship out.

In 1990 50% of properties built in Sweden were intended for the rental market, but by 2006 only 36% of properties built were intended for the rental market : in the intervening years rent controls have tightened.

Original poster
breadandbutterfly · 14/12/2011 09:41

And yes, the cost of the agency would be borne by all taxpayers - in the same way I pay for the NHS even if not ill, for schools even if my children are educated privately,for bin collections even if I generate no rubbish, for social care even if I don't need it myself.... etc. I could go on.

It's this little thing called S-O-C-I-E-T-Y, you know. Obviously, I realise you - like your great role model, Thatcher - don't believe in such things, but...

OP posts:
Original poster
breadandbutterfly · 14/12/2011 09:35

By the way, I agree totally that in a sea of loathsome politicians, Ken stands out for being particularly loathsome on a personal level, BUT this policy is still excellent.

As were his policies on public transport - the improvements and reductions in fares he introduced made a huge difference to the lives of ordinary Londoners.

OP posts:
Original poster
breadandbutterfly · 14/12/2011 09:28

disputandem - rent controls work well in virtually every other advanced country - I don't see the Germans, French etc complaining en masse or their rental system breaking... For heaven's sake, even the Americans have them! So they are hardly radical. Yes, they might put off a few of the Rachman type landlords, but is that really such a loss??

OP posts:
Disputandum · 14/12/2011 09:05

Ihatebabyjake - landlords can only offset the interest element of their mortgage, not the repayment element AFAIK.

Disputandum · 14/12/2011 09:03

Rent controls aren't new, but didn't have the intended consequences in the UK or elsewhere.

Would the cost of his non-profit letting agency be borne by other (non renting) taxpayers?

Would landlords unable to make money from lower rents simply sell up, reducing availability, or stop investing and improving their stock, leading to declining standards?

Would rent increase in line with inflation or would landlords see their incomes eroded in this way?

CogitoErgoSometimes · 14/12/2011 08:59

High house prices are largely a SE phenomenon. The rest of the country - barring a few choice locations - doesn't cost anything like the same. Why everyone seems hell-bent on cramming themselves into London and the Home Counties and moaning about high prices, why they don't pack their bags and relocate more often, is a mystery to me.

ihatebabyjake · 14/12/2011 08:46

High house prices are the biggest problem for the UK's competitive position globally. We have to get the cost of living down since expecting higher wages just makes us less competitive.

When will people work out the higher houses prices are a bad thing? When will the media stop reporting that hoigher house prices are good and lower houses prices are bad? When that food prices or pertol prices were going up, nobody thinks that is a good thing.

However, rent caps are a bad idea since they are completely artificial. Much easier just to create a level playing field. Start by stopping BTL landlords deducting mortgage expenses from rent. I can't borrow money to buy speculatively shares and deduct borrowing costs so why is it ok for property speculation? Make council tax on second homes a multiple of that on first homes. Give tax breaks for renovating empty property. Weaken planning laws to reduce NIMBYism and allow people to build on greefield sites and easily convert industrial and retail spaces to residential purposes.

stuffedauberginexmasdinner · 13/12/2011 23:31

I don't think Boris's counter argument pans out. How would rent caps in the private rental sector effect house building in the public sector?

Civilon · 13/12/2011 23:12

Do an advanced search on Narcissism.

NotADudeExactly · 13/12/2011 23:10

Hmm, I've always felt really ambivalent about him.

He has advocated quite a few positions that I agree with - but as others have said, his cosying up to certain personalities has made me feel rather unwilling to support him.

Housing in London is an outrage, though, and it needs to be addressed! When I still worked in hospitality, it wasn't unusual for even lower management to share a double room with a friend because what they were paid simply did not cover their expenses. DH and I live in a flat and his salary basically covers our rent while mine goes on all the other stuff. It's simply ridiculous!